RE: [sv-bc] Is an unnamed block with declarations a scope?

get (2).  This is a straightforward clarification of the text.
> 
> On the other hand, I don't see any simple mistake that could be
> corrected to get interpretation (3).  The text says that the
> block name space unifies the definitions of the named blocks and
> variables within the enclosing construct.  So named blocks and
> variables within the same enclosing construct MUST go into the
> same name space (AKA scope).  This text clearly disallows moving
> the names of named blocks upward to a higher-level name space,
> while keeping variables within the immediately enclosing one.
> That would not "unify" the two, and would directly contradict
> this text.  No minor clarification of terms could change that,
> while maintaining the existing behavior for other kinds of scopes.
> The text would need to be completely re-written to express this
> new behavior.
> 
> Steven Sharp
> sharp@cadence.com

[DR>] Sounds like that's what we'll have to do. This issue will fall one
way or another depending on who's around when the SV-BC reconvenes.

Dave